Parking Prankster fails to beat around the bush!

bazster

Say what you think Pranky! :T

Can't quote him here (or even post the full URL) because MSE would surely delete it, but Pranky is not so bashful!

http://goo.gl/iAXHNc

James_N

bazster wrote: »

Say what you think Pranky! :T

Can't quote him here (or even post the full URL) because MSE would surely delete it, but Pranky is not so bashful!

http://goo.gl/iAXHNc

So detailed, and so specific, that you wonder why Pranky is not facing a libel case. The allegations are definitely defamatory.
Of course, the best defence against libel is that the statements are true.
I direct Pranky to:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/bloggers-and-libel-law.html

and their leaflet at:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Libel/So_youve_had_a_threatening_letter_FINAL.pdf
just in case

bazster

James_N wrote: »

So detailed, and so specific, that you wonder why Pranky is not facing a libel case. The allegations are definitely defamatory.

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement

James_N wrote: »

Of course, the best defence against libel is that the statements are true.
I direct Pranky to:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/bloggers-and-libel-law.html

and their leaflet at:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Libel/So_youve_had_a_threatening_letter_FINAL.pdf
just in case

I don't think Pranky needs any advice about libel, he's already seen off several threatograms from PE's heavyweight lawyers.

James_N

bazster wrote: »

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement


I don't think Pranky needs any advice about libel, he's already seen off several threatograms from PE's heavyweight lawyers.

No - in the first case, I disagree. In this case it's definitely defamatory - the defence is that it's true. Do you think that defamatory statements become non-defamatory if true. An action can be started (or one of the actionable criteria) if the statements are defamatory without the basis of truth.

- regarding Pranky and his ability to stand up to these companies - yes i think you are right - just making the point and it's an interesting read.

bargepole

James_N wrote: »

No - in the first case, I disagree. In this case it's definitely defamatory - the defence is that it's true. Do you think that defamatory statements become non-defamatory if true. An action can be started (or one of the actionable criteria) if the statements are defamatory without the basis of truth.

- regarding Pranky and his ability to stand up to these companies - yes i think you are right - just making the point and it's an interesting read.

All of those statements made by the Prankster are based in truth.


He has paper trails of evidence to prove these statements are true, and so do I for most of them.

bazster

Definitions of defamation:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation

Any intentional false communication

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/defamation.html

Making of false, derogatory statement(s)

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=458

the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement

A defamatory statement is a false statement

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/definition-of-defamatory

Though the definition of defamation is regarded as the expression of an untrue insinuation against a person’s reputation, this meaning needs to be refined for its use in law.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits.

bazster

James_N wrote: »

Do you think that defamatory statements become non-defamatory if true.

No, because if they are true then, by definition, they weren't defamatory in the first place.

James_N wrote: »

An action can be started (or one of the actionable criteria) if the statements are POTENTIALLY defamatory

And if the statements are found to be true then they will not have been defamatory and the action will fail.

Fergie76

They should not be allowed to do this.

Providing contracts to judges, including HHJ Moloney in the Beavis case, which had pertinent information redacted

If I was the Judge, the first thing I would be asking myself is, what are they hiding? They either provide the whole unredacted contract or none at all.

trisontana

Then you have the £50 "solicitor's fee" even though PE have an in-house solicitor who is on the payroll .

James_N

bazster wrote: »

Definitions of defamation:

[/B][/I]

We could swap dictionary definitions all day. I raise you with:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/defamatory

And a long list at:

http://afen.onelook.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/bware/afen.cgi?word=defamatory&type=word_en

However, what counts here is not the general sense of the word, but the legal sense (the two sometimes differ). In this case, you seem to be right. The general sense of the word is not agreed on by all the referents, but many hold that it is a damaging statement, true or otherwise.

Whatever the meaning of "defamatory" we can agree that the statements are highly damaging to a certain company.

trisontana

James_N wrote: »

Whatever the meaning of "defamatory" we can agree that the statements are highly damaging to a certain company.

My heart bleeds for them!